pact of all programs authorized by this Act and of poverty-related programs authorized by other Acts, in order to determine their effectiveness in achieving stated goals, their impact on related programs, and their structure and mechanisms for delivery of services Since the USDA is the principal operator of federal food programs, the bulk of CFNP monitoring activities will be aimed at programs operated by USDA at the state and local level. Carol Tucker Foreman, Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services, USDA, in commenting upon the FY 79 proposed CFNP regulations, recognized and supported this critically important role of CSA's CFNP grantees. Having stated her commitment to improve the operation of USDA's food programs she said: "We need support and, I am not afraid to admit, pressure ✰✰✰ we need the help and expertise of CFNP grantees. We can write the rules and publish guidelines, but we cannot peer into every community in this land to see how our programs reach people. We need to see how the programs function and receive guidance as to how they can be improved. CFNP must see this function as its major responsibility. There must be informed and aggressive actions state-wide and in communities across the country to monitor program implementation, to help governmental agencies do their jobs and, where necessary, insure that the law is enforced. Certainly we intend to improve our capacity to aid in this process, but most of this work must be undertaken locally where only CFNP, and the volunteer work of other civic organizations, can truly be effective." (emphases added) Thus the monitoring role of CFNP grantees has not only been recognized by USDA, it has been strongly encouraged, and the letter of Ms. Foreman underscores once again its importance. It should be emphasized that the type of monitoring described above is not the same as the monitoring and oversight functions that USDA and other federal agencies, by law, must themselves carry out to insure that programs they administer comply with relevant statutes and regulations, are managed soundly, and achieve the purposes for which they were instituted. Therefore, in carrying out this function, CFNP grantees should carefully avoid conveying the impression that they are supplanting or usurping the monitoring functions proper to these other agencies. IV. OUTREACH Grantees involved in access activities are urged to obtain a copy of USDA's Final Rule, dated November 6, 1979, implementing the outreach provisions of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (Ref. 7 CFR Part 272). In its final rule, USDA distinguishes between two types of outreach as follows: "Informal outreach' is the conveying of information about the Program through such means as publications, telephone hotlines, films, media and face-to-face contacts. 'Non-informational outreach' is the providing of transportation to certification or issuance offices, or similar physical program support." The USDA rule officially recognizes the contribution CSA has been making to the Food Stamp outreach effort in the past and assumes that there will be joint USDA-CSA outreach activity in the future, with USDA coordinating the overall program. Under the USDA rule, for example, while USDA will not reimburse State agencies for non-informational outreach where a CAA is doing such outreach, USDA may pay for such outreach where a CAA is not providing it. In addition, a State agency may be reimbursed for doing informational outreach in the same area a CAA may be doing it. This is simply a recognition of the fact that the combined USDA/CSA resources for outreach are generally insufficient to meet the total need. Granted that CSA has a continuing role in the area of Food Stamp outreach, this does not mean that the CFNP should bear a major part of the outreach burden. For one thing, all CAA's whether or not they are recipients of CFNP funds, have a Food Stamp outreach responsibility. Secondly, CFNP funds are limited and should be applied primarily to advocacy activities directed at institutions rather than on direct services to individuals. A partial solution to CSA's outreach dilemma is provided by USDA's assumption of a major part of the outreach responsibility and in particular by the policy, newly reaffirmed in USDA's final rule on outreach, that State agencies may delegate Food Stamp outreach responsibilities, on a reimbursable basis, to CAA's and CFNP grantees. There is an opportunity here for some very significant catalytic activity on the part of CFNP grantees and CAA's, namely, the leveraging, by means of a contract with a State agency, of USDA funds for outreach performed by CSA's grantees. V. NATIONAL CONSUMER COOPERATIVE BANK The National Consumer Cooperative Bank authorized by Congress in 1978 is required by law to make its "best efforts" to provide 35% of its loan money to low-income organizations including food co-ops. The Bank will publish its final regulations by the end of May, 1980. In the meantime, they have a brochure, available upon request, which explains application procedures and eligibility criteria. Applications are currently being accepted and will be processed on a first come first served basis. CFNP grantees and prospective applicants for food co-op projects are therefore urged to submit their applications Totals 1CSA reserves the right to make adjustments in these allocations in the event that a region or conduit is unable to expend its full allocations due to a lack of qualified applicants. APPENDIX B TO SUBPART 1061.50-RATING CRITERIA-GENERAL COMMUNITY PROJECTSContinued 1. Participation of the Poor (10 pts): Substantive participation by the poor is ensured in the planning, conduct, and evaluation of the project 2. Analysis of Needs/Priorities (0-15 pts): Nature and extent of problem is adequately described and documented (0-8 pts) Priorities selected represent the most serious needs (0-7 pts). 3. Adequacy of Work Program and Budget (020 pts): Goals are appropriately related to need and are specific and measurable (0-5 pts) Activities are adequately described and appropriately related to goals (0-10 pts) Budget is appropriately related to activities and adequately documented (0-5 pts) 4. Anticipated impact (0-10 pts): In relation to the problem to be solved and Impact is minimal (0-3 pts) Points Impact is substantial (7-10 pts) Applicant has involved other institutions and organizations, where appropriate, in the planning of the project (0-5 pts) Other institutions/organizations will be involved in the implementation of the project (0-5 pts) 6. Catalytic Effect of Project on Institutions (ADVOCACY) (0-20 pts): A. Institutional Change (0-10 pts): Grantee, through advocacy for low-income persons, seeks to change interpretations of laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and attitudes in order to insure that low-income persons receive that to which they are entitled B. Mobilization of Community Resources (0-10 pts): Grantee, through advocacy for low-income persons leverages dollars or in-kind contributions from other ele ments in the community 0-25% of total budget (0-3 pts) 7. Ability of Applicant to Perform (0-15 pts): Assessment of past CFNP or other relevant projects (including written self-or thirdparty evaluations, progress reports, or CSA on-site assessments) (0-10 pts) Points APPENDIX D TO SUBPART 1061.50-RATING CRITERIA MIGRANT PROJECTS 1. Participation of the Poor (10 pts): Substantive participation by the poor is ensured in the planning, conduct, and evaluation of the project 2. Analysis of Needs/Priorities (0-15 pts): Nature and extent of problem is adequately described and documented (0-8 pts) Priorities selected represent the most serious needs (0-7 pts) 3. Adequacy of Work Program and Budget (020 pts): Goals are appropriately related to need and are specific and measurable (0-5 pts) Activities are adequately described and appropriately related to goals (0-10 pts) Budget is appropriately related to activities and adequately documented (0-5 pts).. 4. Anticipated impact (0-10 pts): In relation to the problem to be solved and Impact is minimal (0-3 pts). 5. Coordination (0-10 pts): Applicant has involved other institutions and organizations, where appropriate, in the planning of the project (0-5 pts) Other institutions/organizations will be involved in the implementation of the project (0-5 pts) 6. Catalytic Effect of Project on Institutions (ADVOCACY) (0-20 pts): A. Institutional Change (0-15 pts): B. Mobilization of Community Resources (0-5 pts): Grantee, through advocacy for low-in- 0-25% of total budget (0-5 pts) 1. Participation of the Poor (10 pts): Substantive participation by the poor is ensured in the planning, conduct, and evaluation of the project 2. Analysis of Needs/Priorities (0-10 pts): Nature and extent of problem is adequately described and documented (0-5 pts) Priorities selected represent the most serious needs (0-5 pts) 3. Adequacy of Work Program and Budget (020 pts): ..... Goals are appropriately related to need and are specific and measurable (0-5 pts) Activities are adequately described and appropriately related to goals (0-10 pts) Budget is appropriately related to activities and adequately documented (0-5 pts) 4. Anticipated impact (0-10 pts): In relation to the problem to be solved and Impact is minimal (0-3 pts) 5. Coordination (0-10 pts): Applicant has involved other institutions and organizations, where appropriate, in the planning of the project (0-5 pts) Other institutions/organizations will be involved in the implementation of the project (0-5 pts) 6. Catalytic Effect of Project on Institutions (ADVOCACY) (0-25 pts): A. Institutional Change (0-15 pts): Grantee, through advocacy for low-income persons seeks to change interpretations of laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and attitudes in order to insure that low-income persons receive that to which they are entitled B. Mobilization of Community Resources (0-10 pts): Grantee, through advocacy for low-in come persons leverages dollars or in-kind contributions from other ele ments in the community 0-25% of total budget (0-5 pts) Points 1. Participation of the Poor (10 pts): Substantive participation by the poor is ensured in the planning, conduct, and evaluation of the project 2. Analysis of Needs/Priorities (0-10 pts): Nature and extent of problem is adequately described and documented (0-5 pts) Priorities selected represent the most serious needs (0-5 pts) 3. Adequacy of Work Program and Budget (020 pts): Goals are appropriately related to need and are specific and measurable (0-5 pts) Activities are adequately described and appropriately related to goals (0-10 pts) Budget is appropriately related to activities and adequately documented (0-5 pts). 4. Anticipated impact (0-10 pts): In relation to the problem to be solved and Impact is minimal (0-3 pts) 5. Coordination (0-10 pts): Applicant has involved other institutions and 6. Catalytic Effect of Project on Institutions (ADVOCACY) (0-25 pts): A. Institutional Change (0-15 pts): B. Mobilization of Community Resources (0-10 pts): Grantee, through advocacy for low-in- 0-25% of total budget (0-5 pts) 1. Applicant has Skills/Abilities to Perform Adequately (0-30 pts): Applicant's past experience (0-10 pts): Knowledge of Food and Nutrition Field (including other Federal food programs) (0-10 pts) 2. Proposal is Responsive to CSA Policy Priorities (0-25 pts): Applicant demonstrates an understanding of an adequate plan to assist CFNP grantees in moving from a service delivery to a catalytic role by engaging in advocacy to effect: Institutional change (0-15 pts) Mobilization of resources (0-10 pts) 3. Proposal is Responsive to CFNP Grantee Needs for T&TA in Five Program Categories (0-25 pts): Plan is adequate to meet grantee needs (0-15 pts) Plan is appropriately related to the activities in the five categories (0-10 pts) 4. Proposal is Responsive to CFNP Grantee Needs for T&TA in Program Management (010 pts): Applicant proposes an appropriate and adequate plan to assist grantees to improve their ability to: Assess needs Set goals and priorities Evaluate results 5. Proposal includes a Plan to Coordinate T&TA Activities with Other Appropriate Entities (0-5 pts) 6. Proposal includes a Plan to Evaluate Results of Applicant's Efforts (0-5 pts) Total points (possible: 100) Points APPENDIX G TO SUBPART 1061.50— REGIONAL OFFICES REGION I Serving: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont |